Bureaucrats at Work

Everyone loves a good fish story!
Talk techniques, experiences , gear, etc
BrownBear
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:16 pm
Location: Kodiak, AK

Re: Bureaucrats at Work

Post by BrownBear »

catskilljohn wrote:
I don't think simply applying for the permit guarantees you will be able to stock, it lets them decide first if your going to or not.
That was certainly the case on our place in the Rockies, if that's a comparison. The permit didn't cost a thing, but the process let them review what I hoped to do. As it turns out, they didn't like my plans and denied the first permit application.

But there was a very good flip side. They provided me with all sorts of resources on what was allowed and what was known to work in the area. They worked with me to develop a plan, and issued the permit on the second goround. Best of all, the results are much better than what I had envisioned, and they continue to be a good resource for me, this time working with me to solve a noxious weed problem.

No sign of government overreach. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Allan
Posts: 812
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Bureaucrats at Work

Post by Allan »

catskilljohn wrote:
Allan wrote:
Then what is the purpose of the 'permit'?
Allan, did you read it? It informs them where and what kind of fish are being stocked. I imagine if you noted on the permit you were interested in stocking a pond that was too close to sensitive water they wouldn't issue the permit. Like a building permit, they need to know what is going on. If you were building a shed in your yard, they may or may not stop by to check the work, but they sure want to know what is going on.

I don't think simply applying for the permit guarantees you will be able to stock, it lets them decide first if your going to or not. I know you probably feel this is some infringement on ones rights as a landowner, but there are a lot of knuckleheads out there. CJ
John. No! I did not read the specifics of the permit application process. I was commenting, in part, by what Quash wrote. So I'll repeat his sentence: ""There is NO FEE for the stocking permit. The fish and wildlife guys only want to know what's going on." So what if the 'stocker' simply says, "I'm putting some brook trout in my pond". So now the DEC knows what's going on. Now that in and of itself sounds kind of benign until you realize the implication(s) of what's forthcoming. See what Brown Bear's experience was. My point is that no stocking permit, regardless of the hoops someone may have to go through, the architectural/construction designs possibly needed, the costs involved and the insurance probably needed (all by a regulating agency) will eliminate the possible interloping of fish species if nature has her way. Also, I'm not talking about illegal stocking.

User avatar
quashnet
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:33 am

Re: Bureaucrats at Work

Post by quashnet »

Allan has now shifted from the "slippery slope" to a "moving target" defense, where the argument morphs into a different form. The admission that he hasn't read the primary document that explains the permitting process indicates that this is all just talk for the sake of talk.
Please visit and bookmark the NEW Paul H. Young Rod Database at phydatabase.com

Allan
Posts: 812
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Bureaucrats at Work

Post by Allan »

quashnet wrote:Allan has now shifted from the "slippery slope" to a "moving target" defense, where the argument morphs into a different form. The admission that he hasn't read the primary document that explains the permitting process indicates that this is all just talk for the sake of talk.
No slippery slope. No moving target. Simple, and for the most part 'general' statement: A person should be able to do on their property what he wishes as long as it does not directly and purposely interfere with the rights of others. And by-the-way, you were the one who wrote and implied that the 'permit' process and application was just simple and innocent because, "The fish and wildlife guys only want to know what's going on."

User avatar
Joe Fox
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:16 pm
Location: Roscoe, NY
Contact:

Re: Bureaucrats at Work

Post by Joe Fox »

How would the state know if it is something that does effect others without a permit process?

Allan wrote:
No slippery slope. No moving target. Simple, and for the most part 'general' statement: A person should be able to do on their property what he wishes as long as it does not directly and purposely interfere with the rights of others. And by-the-way, you were the one who wrote and implied that the 'permit' process and application was just simple and innocent because, "The fish and wildlife guys only want to know what's going on."

catskilljohn
Posts: 4313
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:03 am
Location: Yardley,PA- Jeffersonville,NY

Re: Bureaucrats at Work

Post by catskilljohn »

Joe Fox wrote:How would the state know if it is something that does effect others without a permit process?
Allan could tell them! CJ
"Gentlemen,remove your hats,this is it"
"This is where the trout was invented?"
"Oh he existed in a crude,primitive form in Waltons England"
"But this is where they painted spots on him and taught him to swim"

Allan
Posts: 812
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Bureaucrats at Work

Post by Allan »

Joe Fox wrote:How would the state know if it is something that does effect others without a permit process?
Joe,

So it appears that many of you have no problem with an agency's intrusion, even though you think benign, into the desire of a private property owner to effect a change on his property. Okay, good for you.

User avatar
Eperous
Posts: 5121
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Catskills

Re: Bureaucrats at Work

Post by Eperous »

Allan wrote:
Joe Fox wrote:How would the state know if it is something that does effect others without a permit process?
Joe,

So it appears that many of you have no problem with an agency's intrusion, even though you think benign, into the desire of a private property owner to effect a change on his property. Okay, good for you.
Correct, and it's NOT an intrusion if our laws mandate it...

Ed

User avatar
ewpeper
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:53 am
Location: Austin, TX and Island Park, ID

Re: Bureaucrats at Work

Post by ewpeper »

Not sure if my aging memory is accurate on this, but I seem to recall that spillover from a private hatchery was the source of the whirling disease that just about wiped out the rainbow fishery in the Madison River for a few years. While I am generally a major opponent of government intervention in damn near anything, this is one area where I think the oversight is key to maintaining our pastime.

Eric
A mountain is a fact -- a trout is a moment of beauty known only to men who seek them.
Al McClane in his Introduction to The Practical Fly Fisherman . . . often erroneously attributed to Arnold Gingrich

User avatar
Joe Fox
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:16 pm
Location: Roscoe, NY
Contact:

Re: Bureaucrats at Work

Post by Joe Fox »

Allan,
Do you let someone stock unchecked then deal with the fallout later if they did not follow the rules / laws OR make sure they are following the rules / laws before they stock to make sure their are no issues later on?
Allan wrote: So it appears that many of you have no problem with an agency's intrusion, even though you think benign, into the desire of a private property owner to effect a change on his property. Okay, good for you.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests